Petitioner challenged failure to grant seniority on par with juniors in ARHC cadre, citing arbitrary inaction in promotional tests and non-consideration of his 2020 representation.
Direct respondents to consider the representation dated 07.09.2020 and pass appropriate orders within two months after providing opportunity to the party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.1336 OF 2023
ORDER:-
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a following relief:
“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner’s Representation dt.07.09.2020 to grant seniority in the cadre of ARHC on par with my juniors one Sri.K.V.N.Rao and S.K.Mahaboob and others notionally and consequential benefits with revised pay scales with effect from the date of representation dt.07.09.2020 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to Rule and further direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to forthwith to consider his Representation dt.07.09.2020 to grant seniority in the cadre of ARHC on par with my juniors one Sri K.V.N.Rao and S.K.Mahaboob and others notionally and consequential benefits with revised pay scales with effect from the date of representation dt.07.09.2020 and pass such other order or orders..”
The case of the petitioner in brief is that initially the petitioner was enlisted as Police Constable (AR) on 24.10.1980. In the year 1983, the Visakhapatnam district was bifurcated into two parts as Visakhapatnam Urban and Visakhapatnam Rural, where the petitioner was retained in Visakhapatnam Urban District. While so, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 02.06.1989 directing 21 ARPCs’ including one Sri K.V.N.Rao and S.K.Mahaboob who are enlisted as
2
ARPC’s on 07.11.1983 to undergo training for three weeks for promotion as ARHC. In the districts of Vizianagaram and Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam Rural, the respondent authorities conducted promotion tests for ARPC’s and ARHC’s on 01.07.1991 as notified by the 2nd respondent and promoted them as ARHC’s on 01.08.1991 and whereas in Visakhapatnam City, the 3rd respondent conducted test on 07.09.1992 and promoted as ARHC’s on 16.11.1992 thereby the petitioner became the junior in the cadre of ARHC in the integrated seniority of Visakhapatnam range.
The further case of the petitioner is that the inaction on part of the 3rd respondent in not conducting promotional test for ARPC’s of Visakhapatnam city on 01.07.1991, the petitioner and some others were deprived of promotions. Later, the 3rd respondent issued provisional seniority list of ARHC’s as on 01.01.2020 vide proceedings dated 10.01.2020, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at S.No.19. Moreover, Sri K.V.N.Rao and others further promoted as Reserve Inspector (AR) in the panel year 2019-20 in multi Zone-I and on promotion he was transferred from Vizianagaram and posted to Nellore District. But the respondents are not taking any steps to review seniority in the cadre of ARHC’s in respect of the petitioner and promoting him as RSI/RI. In view of the same, the petitioner herein submitted a representation dated 07.09.2020 to the 2nd respondent requesting to consider his case and to extend notional seniority on par
3
with the candidates who are deputed for training w.e.f. 01.07.1991 as ARHC’s. But the said representation was neither considered nor acted upon. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent issued a provisional seniority list on 01.01.2020, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.21 and the persons who were at placed at Sl.Nos.1 to 20 were juniors to the petitioner and they were shown over and above the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.09.2020 to the 2nd respondent requesting to consider his case for notional seniority in the range on par with his junior batches to that of 1980 and 1983. It is further submitted that even though the petitioner is entitled for promotion on par with his junior batches, the respondents did not consider the same in a prospective manner.
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that even as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not promoted on par with the juniors in the year 1990. But since then, the petitioner did not agitate his rights at the relevant time and he kept quite all these years. Now,
4
in view of the final seniority list already prepared in the year 2022 he submitted a representation dated 07.09.2020. Since there is no cause of action, the present writ petition is not maintainable.
Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view to dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 07.09.2020 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Date: 23.01.2023 BSP
5
95
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION No.1336 of 2023
Date: 23.01.2023 BSP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority from the date of representation.
Whether the representation dated 07.09.2020 regarding seniority in the cadre of ARHC merits consideration.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner/Representative
Respondents 2 and 3
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
